And she lied about her fear of flying. So they are both liars.

Only one is up for a seat on the Supreme Court.

A lie is a lie.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Only one is up for a seat on the Supreme Court.

A lie is a lie.

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

---

This is why the man does not belong on the Supreme Court. There is no consensus on whether the guy is guilty or innocent. The nation is once again divided. I have absolutely no allegiance to either party and I still don't know who to believe, but when it comes to these sort of things, I tend to lean towards the accuser for safe measure. I don't want sexual predators out there roaming the streets. With that said, I am not 100% leaning one way or the other. It's more like 51% it happened to 49% it didn't and that isn't enough for me to definitively say one way or the other. I am of the opinion that anyone with such accusations, should NEVER be appointed to the highest, most respected court in the land. For God's sake, if he doesn't make it through, all Trump has to do is nominate another one of "his guys". He has all the power in this situation. He can just keep nominating people he wants until they get through. By pushing this one guy, he's just tainting the reputation of the court itself. I don't know why Republicans are taking such a hard line stance. They have the advantage. It also doesn't help that Supreme Court Judges are supposed to be impartial to political parties and Kavanaugh went on about some left wing conspiracy against him by people opposed to Trump and the Clinton's as well. For this alone, he should be taken out of the equation. He showed his cards. That's a no-no.

If you believe her it's because of your emotions, not her facts. If a perfect candidate can just be smeared this way and his supporters fold insteadof fighting for him then we'll have exactly this kind of fraud perpetrated every time an R President makes a nomination. It will set the precedent and become the norm. No one will corroborate this woman's story, not even herself under oath. It's just another lie for political gain by the left and half of America are either gullible enough to believe it or actively supporting the "by any means neccessary" style tactics to win.

And by "tending to believe the accusser" you both play right into their hands with your emotions AND violate one of the basic tenants of our society ie the presumption of innocence. It's a scam and you're falling for it.

That's your opinion and IMO, I feel it's based on the fact you are a hard line Republican. I on the other hand, have no allegiance to either party. I dislike both equally.

---

If you believe her it's because of your emotions, not her facts. If a perfect candidate can just be smeared this way and his supporters fold insteadof fighting for him then we'll have exactly this kind of fraud perpetrated every time an R President makes a nomination. It will set the precedent and become the norm. No one will corroborate this woman's story, not even herself under oath. It's just another lie for political gain by the left and half of America are either gullible enough to believe it or actively supporting the "by any means neccessary" style tactics to win.

And by "tending to believe the accusser" you both play right into their hands with your emotions AND violate one of the basic tenants of our society ie the presumption of innocence. It's a scam and you're falling for it.

That's your opinion and IMO, I feel it's based on the fact you are a hard line Republican. I on the other hand, have no allegiance to either party. I dislike both equally.

And you would be wrong, though my disdain for the left is much greater than that of the right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A lie is a lie.

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

In other news, she was in Delaware....

---

A lie is a lie.

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

If someone lies so easily about something so insignificant and easily provable as not flying, what else are they willing to lie about?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

A lie is a lie.

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

Lying about the fear of flying is irrelevant to anything except whatever ulterior motive the liar had. Everyone with access to a television knew Republicans wanted to fly out to see her wherever she was located. They didn't hide anything.

---

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

If someone lies so easily about something so insignificant and easily provable as not flying, what else are they willing to lie about?

While sworn in in front of a Senate committee, under penalty of perjury and welcoming an FBI probe into her claims?

I see one person who wants their story told and another who's in the process of finding out that the past is not as forgotten as he'd like.

---

If someone lies so easily about something so insignificant and easily provable as not flying, what else are they willing to lie about?

While sworn in in front of a Senate committee, under penalty of perjury and welcoming an FBI probe into her claims?

I see one person who wants their story told and another who's in the process of finding out that the past is not as forgotten as he'd like.

Meh, it's just an unsolicited reference for a job applicant. No big deal so I'm told.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's your opinion and IMO, I feel it's based on the fact you are a hard line Republican. I on the other hand, have no allegiance to either party. I dislike both equally.

And you would be wrong, though my disdain for the left is much greater than that of the right.

That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

---

Yes, but one lie implies that someone is hiding a broader pattern of behavior that would make even our resident father of the year scratch his head, and the other is a product of someone who had large amounts of information about what the Committee was and wasn't willing to do hidden from her by her legal team.

Lying about the fear of flying is irrelevant to anything except whatever ulterior motive the liar had. Everyone with access to a television knew Republicans wanted to fly out to see her wherever she was located. They didn't hide anything.

Let's not forget, the root of the fear of flying was supposedly the claustrophobia caused by Trauma of THIS ALLEGED ASSAULT.  That's a big fib. 

We were also treated to harrowing stories about how long and arduous the two question polygraph was.  

She said that her friend didn't remember the party because of 'health problems'

She said she didn't contact a single white house official or republican on the committee because she (PHD) and her "Beach friends" could only google the address for her congressional representative and the Washington Post (to keep her confidentiality) but none of them could look up Grassley, Flake, Kelly, Conway, or figure out the number for the local police department.  

Not to mention the fact that her story, at current, is predicated on the idea that she and her best friend at the time were at a party, she was attacked by two psychopaths and she walked downstairs after being assaulted and left her best friend there with the two predators to be the next victim.  

Christine Blasey Ford was interviewed by the special questioner.  She was not cross examined.  Had she endured a thorough cross examination she would have folded.  Even in this free flowing, non confrontational form of questioning she still demonstrated material errors and contradictions in her statement and it was pointed out at key points, like her allegedly hearing talking down the stairs or seeing people from locked bathrooms, that parts of her story don't make sense.   

There's a difference between someone's memory not being perfect because of Trauma and someone who is demonstrated to be consistently contradicting herself and exaggerating key facts and narratives to make herself seem more sympathetic.  

The special questioner in this case is a sex crimes prosecutor and victims advocate.  She conquered that in this case, given the fact pattern not only could you not charge Mr. Kavanaugh with attempted Rape, you wouldn't even be able to justify probable cause for a search warrant.

---

And you would be wrong, though my disdain for the left is much greater than that of the right.

That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

I'm sorry you feel this way.  I remember the first time I was told there was no santa clause.  It was a painful experience.  

You have to have context.  before the modern progressive era, The Supreme Court confirmation process was a lot different.  The congress actually performed its function to amend the constitution as a means of dramatic change in the country and it was the role of the court to interpret the laws and rule accordingly.  With the advent of the modern progressive movement and the call for an ACTIVE STATE (no longer functioning within constitutional bounds.) you had a problem.  That problem emerged when you had the whims of administrations and congresses at odds with the founding document and little or no political will to actually go through the ratification process to make the change.  Woodrow Wilson and the like started viewing the court as an arm of radical change instead of tempered ruling and thus dramatically changed its basic function.  Then with the advent of the new deal you had a sitting president of the unites states directly threaten sitting members of the court that had ruled against many of his fascist new deal proposals that if they didn't soften on his domestic agenda he would just pack the court with more and more liberal justices to simply override the majority on the court that opposed his state intrusion.  Fast forward to 1973 and the only means of entry for the radical secular progressives into the mainstream of American Politics became the courts.  Why?  Because you couldn't get nationwide abortion at the ballot box.  Just like today you couldn't get Gay Marriage through the ballot box.  

So over the last 100 years the higher legislative role of congress has migrated to the courts.  As such the leanings of the justices have become more and more a topic during confirmation.  there was a time when confirmation was a simple voice vote with no hearings as long as the nominee was deemed qualified.  

More to your point, Kavanaugh has never expressed himself to be a conservative activist.  What do I mean by that?  He has never advocated disregarding the statute or law in front of him to reach a conclusion based on ideology.  He has vowed that his decisions will be based on the original intent of the legislators and that he will work to apply those concepts to modern circumstances (originalism and textualism.)  Conversely, it is the expressed judicial philosophy of the left on the court to invent legal concepts or rights out of wholecloth in opposition to hundreds or even thousands of years of jurisprudence to fit whatever secular progressive dogma arises during the current day (Living document theory.)  So just because Kavanaugh has the temerity to point out the obvious political headwinds against him doesn't disqualify him from being an impartial jurist and calling balls and strikes.

---

Here's my opinion on the whole damn thing.

1) It's possible that neither of them are lying. It's possible that both of them are telling what they think is the truth.

2) Even if he did what she alleges he did, is that enough to disqualify him from a Supreme Court seat? Drunk 17-year-olds do stupid things. If everyone who ever did something evil or criminal when they were a teenager was disqualified from high office, the only people left would be people we'd not want running the country.

3) Right now, all we have is an unproven allegation with no supporting evidence.

4) Maybe I'm being insensitive, but for someone to sit there and weep about something that happened 35 years ago, it seems like she might need some professional help. Am I being insensitive? 35 years is a long time to hold onto something like this.

---

  

4) Maybe I'm being insensitive, but for someone to sit there and weep about something that happened 35 years ago, it seems like she might need some professional help.  Am I being insensitive?   35 years is a long time to hold onto something like this.

I’d understand holding onto it if it included more physical violence. But, for someone as sad as she wanted us to believe, she sure did laugh, smile, and joke around a lot.

---

Ford lied about being a psychologist.  She has never held a license and is not allowed to make that claim.  It would be the same as a student with a law degree calling himself an attorney though he has not passed the bar.  In California the penalty is up to 5 years in prison.  Note that her Stanford profile was changed.  The archived page from 2015 lists her as a research psychologist.  The current page lists her as "affilliate, psychiatry and behavioral sciences". 

---

And you would be wrong, though my disdain for the left is much greater than that of the right.

That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

You've confused parties and philosophies.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

I'm sorry you feel this way.  I remember the first time I was told there was no santa clause.  It was a painful experience.  

You have to have context.  before the modern progressive era, The Supreme Court confirmation process was a lot different.  The congress actually performed its function to amend the constitution as a means of dramatic change in the country and it was the role of the court to interpret the laws and rule accordingly.  With the advent of the modern progressive movement and the call for an ACTIVE STATE (no longer functioning within constitutional bounds.) you had a problem.  That problem emerged when you had the whims of administrations and congresses at odds with the founding document and little or no political will to actually go through the ratification process to make the change.  Woodrow Wilson and the like started viewing the court as an arm of radical change instead of tempered ruling and thus dramatically changed its basic function.  Then with the advent of the new deal you had a sitting president of the unites states directly threaten sitting members of the court that had ruled against many of his fascist new deal proposals that if they didn't soften on his domestic agenda he would just pack the court with more and more liberal justices to simply override the majority on the court that opposed his state intrusion.  Fast forward to 1973 and the only means of entry for the radical secular progressives into the mainstream of American Politics became the courts.  Why?  Because you couldn't get nationwide abortion at the ballot box.  Just like today you couldn't get Gay Marriage through the ballot box.  

So over the last 100 years the higher legislative role of congress has migrated to the courts.  As such the leanings of the justices have become more and more a topic during confirmation.  there was a time when confirmation was a simple voice vote with no hearings as long as the nominee was deemed qualified.  

More to your point, Kavanaugh has never expressed himself to be a conservative activist.  What do I mean by that?  He has never advocated disregarding the statute or law in front of him to reach a conclusion based on ideology.  He has vowed that his decisions will be based on the original intent of the legislators and that he will work to apply those concepts to modern circumstances (originalism and textualism.)  Conversely, it is the expressed judicial philosophy of the left on the court to invent legal concepts or rights out of wholecloth in opposition to hundreds or even thousands of years of jurisprudence to fit whatever secular progressive dogma arises during the current day (Living document theory.)  So just because Kavanaugh has the temerity to point out the obvious political headwinds against him doesn't disqualify him from being an impartial jurist and calling balls and strikes.

It's only obvious to people on the right. It's not hard to read between the lines of what he was saying. The minute he blamed the Clintons, in a fit of rage, it was obvious which way he leaned. If you can't see this, I don't know what to tell you. My suspicions tell me you are trying to spin something that cannot be spun into a positive for the republicans though, like when Sarah Sanders tried to convince people that the U.N. delegates were laughing at Trump as a sign of respect. 

---

That statement shows shows you have leanings though. I despise both parties equally. The two party system does not work. It just divides the country into hard liners on the right and the left. I truly don't care for either political party. I have no dog in this fight and I can't say one way or the other if a sexual assault occurred. All I know is Kavanaugh yelled a lot, drank a bunch of water and accused the Clintons, people who oppose Trump and other left wingers of trying to smear his reputation. That tells a lot about which way he leans and Supreme Court Judges aren't supposed to have any political leanings. That should eliminate him from consideration right there.

You've confused parties and philosophies.

To me, both parties are two sides of the same coin. Their philosophies are too. They see everything as either one way or the other, nothing in between. Few things in this world are either black or white. There are so many shades of grey that are being overlooked by both parties.

---

I'm sorry you feel this way.  I remember the first time I was told there was no santa clause.  It was a painful experience.  

You have to have context.  before the modern progressive era, The Supreme Court confirmation process was a lot different.  The congress actually performed its function to amend the constitution as a means of dramatic change in the country and it was the role of the court to interpret the laws and rule accordingly.  With the advent of the modern progressive movement and the call for an ACTIVE STATE (no longer functioning within constitutional bounds.) you had a problem.  That problem emerged when you had the whims of administrations and congresses at odds with the founding document and little or no political will to actually go through the ratification process to make the change.  Woodrow Wilson and the like started viewing the court as an arm of radical change instead of tempered ruling and thus dramatically changed its basic function.  Then with the advent of the new deal you had a sitting president of the unites states directly threaten sitting members of the court that had ruled against many of his fascist new deal proposals that if they didn't soften on his domestic agenda he would just pack the court with more and more liberal justices to simply override the majority on the court that opposed his state intrusion.  Fast forward to 1973 and the only means of entry for the radical secular progressives into the mainstream of American Politics became the courts.  Why?  Because you couldn't get nationwide abortion at the ballot box.  Just like today you couldn't get Gay Marriage through the ballot box.  

So over the last 100 years the higher legislative role of congress has migrated to the courts.  As such the leanings of the justices have become more and more a topic during confirmation.  there was a time when confirmation was a simple voice vote with no hearings as long as the nominee was deemed qualified.  

More to your point, Kavanaugh has never expressed himself to be a conservative activist.  What do I mean by that?  He has never advocated disregarding the statute or law in front of him to reach a conclusion based on ideology.  He has vowed that his decisions will be based on the original intent of the legislators and that he will work to apply those concepts to modern circumstances (originalism and textualism.)  Conversely, it is the expressed judicial philosophy of the left on the court to invent legal concepts or rights out of wholecloth in opposition to hundreds or even thousands of years of jurisprudence to fit whatever secular progressive dogma arises during the current day (Living document theory.)  So just because Kavanaugh has the temerity to point out the obvious political headwinds against him doesn't disqualify him from being an impartial jurist and calling balls and strikes.

It's only obvious to people on the right. It's not hard to read between the lines of what he was saying. The minute he blamed the Clintons, in a fit of rage, it was obvious which way he leaned. If you can't see this, I don't know what to tell you. My suspicions tell me you are trying to spin something that cannot be spun into a positive for the republicans though, like when Sarah Sanders tried to convince people that the U.N. delegates were laughing at Trump as a sign of respect. 

---

You've confused parties and philosophies.

To me, both parties are two sides of the same coin. Their philosophies are too. They see everything as either one way or the other, nothing in between. Few things in this world are either black or white. There are so many shades of grey that are being overlooked by both parties.

Ur trying to spin not having a response to my position.

---

Not a single new "victim" came forward this weekend? That is shocking.

---

Not a single new "victim" came forward this weekend? That is shocking.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.    U jinxed it!!!!

---